Bibliographic record
Abstract
The invertebrates have adopted a myriad of breathing strategies to facilitate the extraction of adequate quantities of oxygen from their surrounding environments. Their respiratory structures can take a wide variety of forms, including integumentary surfaces, lungs, gills, tracheal systems, and even parallel combinations of these same gas exchange structures. Like their vertebrate counterparts, the invertebrates have evolved elaborate control strategies to regulate their breathing activity. Our goal in this article is to present the reader with a description of what is known regarding the control of breathing in some of the specific invertebrate species that have been used as model systems to study different mechanistic aspects of the control of breathing. We will examine how several species have been used to study fundamental principles of respiratory rhythm generation, central and peripheral chemosensory modulation of breathing, and plasticity in the control of breathing. We will also present the reader with an overview of some of the behavioral and neuronal adaptability that has been extensively documented in these animals. By presenting explicit invertebrate species as model organisms, we will illustrate mechanistic principles that form the neuronal foundation of respiratory control, and moreover appear likely to be conserved across not only invertebrates, but vertebrate species as well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".